The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comment on: American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011. Diabetes Care 2011;34(Suppl. 1):S11–S61
Open accessAbstract
How to screen and treat gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has always been controversial for clinicians and decision makers. The problem is complex, and the evidence is limited. The new standards set by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in 2011 (1) recommend 1 ) universal screening at 24–28 weeks of gestation (2010 ADA standards recommended selective screening based on risk factors) and 2 ) an oral glucose tolerance test with a diagnostic fasting plasma glucose of ≥92 mg/dL (4.5 mmol/L) (much lower than the World Health Organization [WHO] criteria of ≥126 mg/dL [7.0 mmol/L] commonly used in clinical practice in Europe). Furthermore, diabetes is diagnosed when only one abnormal value is detected (whereas in the 2010 standards two …
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes
(2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0707943 · Cited by 5,563
Horvath, K., Koch, K., Jeitler, K., Matyas, E., Bender, R., Bastian, H., Lange, S., & Siebenhofer, A. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c1395 · Cited by 359
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- American Diabetes Association, 2011, Standards of medical care in diabetes—2011, Diabetes Care, 34, S11, 10.2337/dc11-S011 · DOI · Paper page
- National Screening Committee UK, 2009, Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme; 2009
- Sistema Nazionale per le Linee Guida, Gravidanza fisiologica. Linea Guida 20
Cited by
Stone, N. J., Robinson, J. G., Lichtenstein, A. H., Bairey Merz, C. N., Blum, C. B., Eckel, R. H., Goldberg, A. C., Gordon, D., Levy, D., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., et al. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437738.63853.7a · Cited by 7,081
Inzucchi, S. E., Bergenstal, R. M., Buse, J. B., Diamant, M., Ferrannini, E., Nauck, M., Peters, A. L., Tsapas, A., Wender, R., & Matthews, D. R. (2012) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0 · Cited by 3,919
Danaei, G., Finucane, M. M., Lu, Y., Singh, G. M., Cowan, M. J., Paciorek, C. J., Lin, J. K., Farzadfar, F., Khang, Y.-H., Stevens, G. A., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60679-x · Cited by 3,568
Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Scirica, B. M., Bhatt, D. L., Braunwald, E., Steg, P. G., Davidson, J., Hirshberg, B., Ohman, P., Frederich, R., Wiviott, S. D., Hoffman, E. B., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1307684 · Cited by 3,470
Liu, D., Ahmet, A., Ward, L., Krishnamoorthy, P., Mandelcorn, E. D., Leigh, R., Brown, J. P., Cohen, A., & Kim, H. (2013) · Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1186/1710-1492-9-30 · Cited by 1,268
Metadata
- Authors
- Basevi, V., Di Mario, S., Morciano, C., Nonino, F., & Magrini, N.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2011-04-20
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e53-e53
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2016622896
- Cited by
- 3,055
- References
- 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comment on: American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011. Diabetes Care 2011;34(Suppl. 1):S11–S61. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/dc11-0174
- The paper
- Basevi, V., Di Mario, S., Morciano, C., Nonino, F., & Magrini, N. (2011). Comment on: American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011. Diabetes Care 2011;34(Suppl. 1):S11–S61. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-0174
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
